| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On October 16 2014 03:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: Although very cordial, this thread is hitting an academic low right now. Hey, very cordial is a start =) And yes I agree with Wombat. I'd rather read about this than about the TvZ win rates of strategically selected "top players." | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 16 2014 04:23 DinoMight wrote: Hey, very cordial is a start =) And yes I agree with Wombat. I'd rather read about this than about the TvZ win rates of strategically selected "top players." I actually have no argument against this lol Just to bring it back on topic then: what's the actual DPS increases of the various upgrades? Like, with marines, +1 at .83 is like 1.2ish dps With Siege Tabks, +5 at 3ish is like 1.2ish dps Are the upgrades really that different? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
10% of the damage per attack, rounded to the next natural number There are only two exceptions to this rule as far as I understand, which are the Tempest's vs massive air and the baneling's vs buildings which only upgrade with +5 which seems to be the upper cap for upgrades, and anytime blizzard changed the damage of a unit above/below a critical value, they either also changed the upgrade +X, or they released a patch later on saying "a bug has been resolved. Upgrade damage of unit Y changed to..." Examples: a unit with 30damage will get a +3upgrade a unit with 35damage will get a +4upgrade (rounded up in this case) a unit with 34damage will get a +3upgrade (rounded down in this case) This system makes it so that in particular units with a very low damage value greatly benefit from having an upgrade advantage or get extremely punished by one: zergling with +1advantage is +20% damage zergling with -1advantage is -20% damage Other units like stalkers have a very weak upgrade scaling because of that: 10(+4vs armored) gets only +1 which is really only 7.1% vs armored and 10% vs other. Or the hydralisk with 12 base gets +1 which is 8.3%. The higher the base damage, the lower the relative advantage you get from just barely making the round-up-cut: a roach still only gets 12.5% instead of 10%. and Ultralisk 11.4% instead of 10% ... However, one other relation has to be mentioned which is armor. Armor only reduced damage by one per level. So regardless of the percentual increase, in equal armor/attack scenarios a unit that only gets upgraded with +1damage does not get any advantage. This is basically the reason why being ahead or behind in armor upgrades against marines/zerglings/zealots is so scary or so good. This is also the reason why Terran pushes hitting 1/1, 2/2 and then 3/3 are so scary for zergs these days. If the Terran hits at the right time, it is impossible to be ahead a full set on upgrades. But in many cases you will be behind and then it means -20% damage for your zerglings and +16.6% damage for the marines. On October 16 2014 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: I actually have no argument against this lol Just to bring it back on topic then: what's the actual DPS increases of the various upgrades? Like, with marines, +1 at .83 is like 1.2ish dps With Siege Tabks, +5 at 3ish is like 1.2ish dps Are the upgrades really that different? yeah of course that's a massive difference. The one is a +1.2increase for a single marine. The other a +1.2increase for a single siege tank. But you can afford 3-5times the amount of marines that you can afford per siege tank. So it is really a +3.6 to 6.0 increase for the marines in the comparison to a tank. Also this is unstimmed marines. With stimmed marines (+1.7dps for a +1upgrade) it really is 5.1 to 8.5. Edit: btw it is of course a little unfair to compare a splash unit's singlefire dps to a singlefire unit. Usually a tank will hit more targets at once, so have a higher dps to begin with then what Liquipedia lists. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26799 Posts
Iirc, Marines in BW are stats wise pretty comparable to their SC2 counterparts, but the 'rine-'ling dynamic is very different due to how the engines work respectively in both games. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On October 16 2014 04:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: I actually have no argument against this lol Just to bring it back on topic then: what's the actual DPS increases of the various upgrades? Like, with marines, +1 at .83 is like 1.2ish dps With Siege Tabks, +5 at 3ish is like 1.2ish dps Are the upgrades really that different? There is also stuff like TRUE's baneling heavy style. He sometimes goes very long without upgrades and then builds a lot of banelings and I guess the reasoning is that marines only have 45 hp (shields and stim cancel each other out) and banelings will two-shot them regardless of an upgrade deficit. Zerglings on the other hand are nearly useless vs upgraded marines. Protoss often goes for only attack upgrades because a colossus with full attack upgrades attacking a marine with full armor upgrades does 39 damage per shot. But if neither party is upgraded then the colossus does only 30 damage per shot. Compare that with the scenario of a marine shooting a zergling where the damage is always 5 when on equal upgrades and you can see that upgrades scale differently depending on the unit. | ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
On October 16 2014 07:05 Grumbels wrote: There is also stuff like TRUE's baneling heavy style. He sometimes goes very long without upgrades and then builds a lot of banelings and I guess the reasoning is that marines only have 45 hp (shields and stim cancel each other out) and banelings will two-shot them regardless of an upgrade deficit. Zerglings on the other hand are nearly useless vs upgraded marines. Protoss often goes for only attack upgrades because a colossus with full attack upgrades attacking a marine with full armor upgrades does 39 damage per shot. But if neither party is upgraded then the colossus does only 30 damage per shot. Compare that with the scenario of a marine shooting a zergling where the damage is always 5 when on equal upgrades and you can see that upgrades scale differently depending on the unit. When Protoss is on one forge, he will most likley go for Armor Only Upgrades first, not for attack in PvT. Terran deploys much more low single target dps with units like marines, vikings have a double attack, so armor is twice worth when vikings shoot the coloss and zelots live longer to do hold the lines. Terran will go with one ebay in TvP 1-0, 1-1, 2-1, 3-1. Attack is for Terran much more important then def, storm is not effected by def, coloss makes anyway alot of dmg in marine lines. Terran needs all the attack or marines will do almost no dmg at all against 0-3 protoss units. In PvZ you can see attack only because protoss needs dmg much more then def, roaches dont have that high dps at all and it is more important to melt down the hydras. When it comes to PvSH, P will soon have double forge and 3-3. In TvZ most common is double upgrades by both parties, where as terran sometimes uses the above describe way to upgrade with one ebay, attack is allways more important for terran because he uses these glascannons who melt away under good bane and mine hits anyway. Zerg will need armor and attack, maybe armor more then attack, but without lings melt. With Adrino and 3-3 lings shouldnt be underestimated and they can be used to fuck up terran splits and catch their army because banes teamkill. I do not see balance problems at the moment how the upgrades works, shure in a system, where armor brings up only -1 dmg for the incoming attack, attack upgrade will bring up round about 10-20% damage( depending on the unit, attack brings at least +1dmg for low dmg units like ling and marine ) units with higher but slower dmg will do more dmg in 3-3 fights while marines and lings will allways do their base dmg in 3-3 fights. Thats the price of a System, which does not use percentiges for the armor. But i still do not see a balnce related thing here. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On October 16 2014 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: Would it be easiest to make balance fixes by tweaking upgrades? It is surprising, in retrospect, just how rarely that option has been taken advantage of. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 16 2014 08:00 pure.Wasted wrote: It is surprising, in retrospect, just how rarely that option has been taken advantage of. It would allow us to buff units in the late game without affecting the early game. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On October 16 2014 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: Would it be easiest to make balance fixes by tweaking upgrades? I think quite literally you could write an algorithm that would do a fair job balancing the game purely by adjusting upgrade costs depending on win rates. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
Eraz0rZ
Netherlands47 Posts
So you can autokill any chargelot without effort or skill. Because thats literally what it did to the matchup, Remove zealots alltogether. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 16 2014 08:48 Eraz0rZ wrote: Terrans admit it, you cant micro vs chargelots and thats why you want your patch mines. So you can autokill any chargelot without effort or skill. Because thats literally what it did to the matchup, Remove zealots alltogether. Oh God, the irony... | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On October 16 2014 09:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: And just like that, the cordial discussion vanishes like Zerg tears in the soul train. 10/10. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
If I was really honest and well intentioned, I'd go beg the battle.net threads for a nerf to my race, but I find that counter-productive, so I'll just abuse it for as long as I can and answer to snarky comments with snarky comments of my own. Edit: Meh, I feel like this is not very fair from my part. My comment is not constructive in a balance oriented way. I don't really have a solution to Terran being overpowered (I don't often seek solutions to nerf my race), but I think the game is really hard to balance so that the races have to work equally hard in all facets of the game to get the win. If at least they can work hard in different facets, that's good. Like Protoss being required to be good at knowing where to best proxy a tech building and Terran required to being good at having a seizure on his mouse. And Zerg, well, zerg's macro is hard, right? But yeah, seriously, widow mines are useful again, maybe even powerful, so they could use a little nerf. Blizzard should find a middle ground between utterly useless and powerful. Like "mildly usable"? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games Grubby25916 gofns16687 summit1g13701 tarik_tv8387 Liquid`RaSZi2992 FrodaN1620 B2W.Neo601 Pyrionflax173 ToD102 Livibee69 |
|
OSC
Replay Cast
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
